BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about the statement, ‘[Trump and] his fervent love of supporting Israel. The people, that by design, the genocidal maniacs.’ The Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s finding that the comment had the potential to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Israeli people. It found the broadcaster’s decision to uphold the complaint, apologise to the complainant, and counsel the host on the importance of exercising care when discussing political matters and ensuring sections of the community are treated with respect and dignity, was sufficient in the circumstances.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration (Action Taken)

The broadcast

[1]  During the 16 January 2026 broadcast of Summer Nights with Roman Travers on Newstalk ZB, host Roman Travers commented on news items that had been broadcast earlier in the programme. One item had reported on the Venezuelan opposition leader gifting United States President Donald Trump her 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. Travers presented his opinion on Trump’s credibility for the prize:

Well, of course that’s what he wanted. It’s not his though, just because she’s handed it over does not make it his. You know that situation at school, or at home with children – when you were a child – and you were upset because you didn’t have one. ‘I want one!’ So, someone gave you one, just to shut you up – it’s a bit like that. So, it has no credibility, the fact that it’s been handed to Donald Trump, a man who has done very little to work towards world peace. In fact, he’s added more fuel to it in various places of the world. One of the criteria for getting the prize is the reduction of military input or output. And that’s certainly not the case with him, with his fervent love of supporting Israel. The people, that by design, the genocidal maniacs. So, he’s all part of that. So, how on earth could you get a Nobel Peace Prize? The answer is quite obviously: well, you can’t.

The complaint

[2]  EM complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand due to Travers’ comment, ‘The people, that by design, the genocidal maniacs.’ They considered the comment was ‘hostile,’ prejudiced against Jewish people, and anti-Semitic. They considered there was no justification for the comment.

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  NZME Radio Ltd (NZME) upheld the complaint for the following reasons:

a)  Travers’ comment was intended to refer to Israel’s political leadership rather than the Israeli citizens (this had been confirmed by Travers himself). ‘That said, we fully acknowledge that Roman’s wording could reasonably be interpreted as applying more broadly to Israeli people. We recognise the significant sensitivity surrounding this topic and appreciate that language choices matter greatly in public discourse of this nature.’

b)  ‘Having considered the issue carefully, we agree that the comment was inappropriate and risked encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, a section of the community. For these reasons, we have decided to uphold [the] complaint.’

[2]  NZME detailed the following actions which they undertook in upholding the complaint:  

a)  ‘Newstalk ZB’s Content Directors have spoken directly with Roman. They have reiterated the importance of exercising care when discussing political matters (or matters that are sensitive in nature), being precise in the language used, and ensuring all groups in the community are treated with respect and dignity.’

b)  The Newstalk ZB Content Directors also ‘confirmed they are treating this as a learning opportunity for Roman and ongoing coaching will be provided’.

c)  ‘Newstalk ZB sincerely apologises for the offence caused.’

d)  ‘The issues addressed have also informed broader learning discussions within the Newstalk ZB team.’

[3]  The complainant was not satisfied with the action taken by the broadcaster and so referred the matter to us. They considered Travers should be ‘taken off air immediately’.

The standard

[4]  The purpose of the discrimination and denigration standard (standard 4) is to protect sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and to foster a community commitment to equality.¹ The standard states:²

Broadcast content should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.  

Our analysis

[5]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.  

[6]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.³

[7]  Where the broadcaster has upheld a complaint in the first instance, our role is to consider the action taken assessed against the gravity of the breach.⁴

[8]  We first considered whether we agreed with NZME’s finding that there was a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard, due to Travers’ use of the term ‘genocidal maniacs’. NZME has advised the comment was intended to ‘refer to Israel’s political leadership rather than the Israeli citizens’. The discrimination and denigration standard applies only to recognised ‘sections of the community’, which is consistent with the prohibited grounds of discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993.⁵ We have previously found that the standard may protect citizens of particular countries, but that it does not operate to protect sovereign governments.⁶

[9]  However, we agree that the wording of the comments, ‘…with [Trump’s] fervent love of supporting Israel. The people, that by design, the genocidal maniacs,’ could reasonably have been interpreted by the audience as referring to Israeli people. If understood this way, we agree the effect of the comments was to convey a high level of condemnation of Israeli people as a recognised section of the community, in breach of the standard.

[10]  We note the complainant considered the comments were derogatory towards Jewish people. We consider they could only reasonably be interpreted as limited to Israeli people rather than Jewish people more broadly.

Action taken

[11]  In assessing the sufficiency of actions taken to remedy a breach, we consider the severity of the conduct, the extent of the actual or potential harm that may have arisen and whether the action taken appropriately remedied the alleged harm. We considered the following factors to be relevant:

a)  The comment had the potential to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Israeli people. We consider the potential harm increased given the context of the ongoing Israeli-Hamas conflict.

b)  However, the comment was made off-the-cuff in a live talk-back radio environment. It was intended to refer to the Israeli government and appeared unintended to cause harm to Israeli people generally.  

c)  The comment was very brief and was not dwelt on or repeated.

d)  The comment was made as part of critique of Trump’s suitability to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Such political commentary carries high value in terms of the exercise of freedom of expression.

e)  The broadcaster acknowledged the potential harm and upheld the complaint in the first instance. It ensured the relevant people were made aware of the complaint and the outcome, and were counselled to avoid similar conduct. NZME also apologised to the complainant for the offence caused.

[12]  Weighing the above factors, we do not consider any further action is warranted to remedy the potential harm in this case. While we acknowledge the comments had the potential to be harmful, they were made briefly as part of political commentary and were not intended to cause harm to Israeli people as a section of the community. The broadcaster took appropriate steps in response to the complaint – acknowledging the potential harm, apologising to the complainant, and counselling the host on the importance of exercising care when discussing political matters and ensuring sections of the community are treated with respect and dignity. We consider this to be sufficient in the circumstances.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
27 May 2026

   
Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  EM’s original complaint – 17 January 2026

2  NZME’s decision – 2 February 2026

3  EM’s referral to the Authority – 27 February 2026

4  NZME’s response to the referral – 16 March 2026

5  EM’s further comments – 19 March 2026

6  NZME’s confirmation of no further comments – 24 March 2026

¹ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
² Standard 4: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ For a similar approach, see Ffowcs-Williams and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-092 at [9]
⁵ Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(h)(iii)
⁶ See Jones and Sky Free Ltd, Decision No. 2025-047 at [12]; Baker and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-054 at [22]; and McArthur and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-004 at [34]